Blakeney said he advised Long not to go because the meeting was mostly "informational" and he wanted to know what sort of questions the members had before allowing Long to face an inquiry on a highly volatile subject.

Goldberg said he was expecting Long to attend until 10 minutes before the meeting began.

"It sends a bad message that he does not publicly want to be held accountable," Goldberg said. "I'm very disappointed. He led us astray, and it proves that he has something to hide."

While some council members requested a chronological report of how the problem got to its current state -- with city officials expecting shortfalls totaling nearly $2 billion in the municipal and police pension funds -- others said they wanted to focus more on what should be done about it.

The crisis has been blamed largely on benefit increases in the main municipal fund.

When the increases went before the Legislature in 2001, Long's actuarial consultant predicted they would not cost more than 14 percent of the city's payroll. Two years later, the consultant revised that figure to 42 percent, or about $100 million extra per year from taxpayers for the next 18 years.

The city will hold a special election May 15 to exempt itself from a state constitutional amendment that locks in lucrative pension benefits to city employees.

"Everyone is anxious about this pending election," Councilman Adrian Garcia said of city employees. "I would like to see the administration be more forthcoming about what the plan is."

Even if voters allow the city to opt out of the amendment, the city would have to reach an agreement with the main pension fund's board on any changes in the rules. If no agreement is reached, either side could go to the state Legislature, which will not meet in regular session again until next year.

Council members also voiced concern Monday that the main pension system, which serves non-police and non-firefighter employees, may spend money to campaign against the measure. City Attorney Arturo Michel assured them that the board would be legally prohibited from using public money to advocate a position in an election.

Blakeney said he does not believe the board intends to spend any money for that purpose.